- Reconstruction and state sovereignty raised in heated argument
- Web of state and federal litigation leaves judges torn over process
The election battle between a sitting North Carolina Supreme Court justice and her Republican challenger ran into a panel of federal judges Monday concerned that their ruling could welcome a new wave of election litigation.
Attorneys for Justice Allison Riggs and the state’s ballot board told the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit judges that federal courts have nothing to worry about, and that the bizarre circumstances of this razor-thin election won’t flood federal dockets. In contrast, an attorney for her opponent, Jefferson Griffin, said federal courts could create a wave of filings if they don’t leave the issue of contested races to state tribunals.
“The debate here is how to give dignity to state courts and the state’s power as a sovereign, but if there’s a federal litigation we can preempt that,” said Judge Paul V. Niemeyer.
The argument in the Richmond, Va., courtroom was the latest development in a first-of-its-kind case in which the North Carolina Supreme Court paused the certification of the election of one of its own justices. Riggs was declared the winner over Griffin by less than 800 votes in a race that was recounted and double-checked, but Griffin is seeking to throw out roughly 66,000 votes claiming that registrations were faulty or ID photocopies weren’t provided by overseas military voters.
Niemeyer was the most vocal during the argument from Riggs, the state board and voters supporting the sitting justice. He repeatedly questioned whether the federal courts had the power to undo a ruling from the North Carolina Supreme Court last week which ordered state election officials to pause Riggs’ certification and gave Griffin the power to continue his challenge to the race in state trial court.
It was thorny because before the state high court issued that ruling, the state ballot board had remanded Griffin’s petition to the state high court to a federal district court. That district court sent the case back despite federal claims from election officials that blocking certification of the election violated US Constitutional rights of voters and multiple federal election laws.
Judge Toby J. Heytens had few questions for the Riggs coalition but peppered Griffin’s counsel, interrupting him repeatedly for over a half-hour. He raised issues from the trial court’s questionable decision to abstain from considering the federal legal issues to why a federal appeals court’s power would be limited by its lower court sending a letter to a state court.
“In what conceivable universe would it make sense to say that a federal district court mailing something would limit the power” of congressional statutes guaranteeing appeal like in this case, he said.
Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. was more circumspect, asking questions to both sides and probing the broader implications of empowering federal courts as a venue for these kinds of disputes when the complaint filed by the challenger—Griffin—only brought state-based statutory violations over the votes.
“So, every state election could come to federal court?” he asked.
At its core, the litigants argued over which was the more important principle—that states resolve issued of election law for themselves, or that federal courts be open to step in when state officials violate federal law by delaying election results.
“If we’re so concerned about state officials being sued for not enforcing federal law, I can point you to reconstruction for that,” Heytens said.
After over an hour going back and fourth, Niemeyer ended the argument, eliciting laughter from a packed room there to observe the unprecedented case.
“The question I have is whether we’ve advanced the law or split the law up into a bunch of pieces,” he said. “If there’s anyone here in the audience who can help clear that up that would be appreciated.”
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP and Dowling Firm PLLC represent Griffin. Womble Bond Dickinson LLP represents Riggs.
The case is Griffin v. Riggs, 4th Cir., No. 25-01024, oral argument held 1/27/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.